Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Hashjihad Date: Dec 17, 2012 2:12pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Post the Peer reviewed research, certainly science daily and slate are not.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: chris in long beach Date: Dec 17, 2012 5:46pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

It looks like the article referenced was originally published in a peer-reviewed publication, the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. (link: http://ajl.sagepub.com/ )

Here's the full article in PDF:

http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20of%20a%20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Hashjihad Date: Dec 17, 2012 8:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

According to the study we should be.focusing on depression, mental health, teenage and children's image and self worth. Many of these concepts.can.be negatively affected by media; which includes news outlets, sports figures, celebrities etc... Guns were only an end to a means. You wanna kill yourself, a bullet to head is fast and efficient, while ODing on pills is painful and might not work. 27 people shoot themselves to death every day in the US.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jack o' Roses Date: Dec 17, 2012 5:35pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Science Daily quoted a peer-reviewed journal; here is the scoop:

The American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine is a bimonthly peer-reviewed medical journal that covers the field of lifestyle medicine. The editor-in-chief is James M. Rippe (Tufts University Medical School). It was established in 2007 and is currently published by SAGE Publications. (says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Journal_of_Lifestyle_Medicine)

the free referenced abstract, located at http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/5/6/502,says

"Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home
David Hemenway, PhD
Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
David Hemenway, PhD, Director, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115; e-mail: hemenway@hsph.harvard.edu.
Abstract

This article summarizes the scientific literature on the health risks and benefits of having a gun in the home for the gun owner and his/her family. For most contemporary Americans, scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes. On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in. Thus, groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics urge parents not to have guns in the home."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Dec 17, 2012 7:17pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

It would be interesting to see how this study breaks down the incident rate where the gun owner(s) just went out and bought a gun and had no follow-on, recurring training. Or how many guns were not properly stored in a locked safe or with a trigger guard in a household with small children or with adults/young adults with known mental illness. Or were purchased by adults with mental illness who lied on their application/registration.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 17, 2012 7:56pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Well of course, Mando, but how could you control all that ... without interfering with all the freedoms you're trying to protect? How would you enforce how people store the guns once they get them home? If you're opposed to making it more difficult for them to buy them in the first place how are you going to require them to have a trigger guard? You can require it but how would you enforce that? In the privacy of their home, they'll use a trigger guard or not, as they please. And you're going to enforce this on the basis of whether there are small children in the home? You'd be violating constitutional rights all over the place. And how pray tell would we legislate against people LYING?

Don't you see that's the POINT - if we can't even regulate the sale or ownership of them, we surely can't legislate whether people are properly trained in their use or store them properly or never let anyone mentally unstable into their home after the purchase of the gun. Don't the "limit government" people want to keep the government OUT of our homes? Are you proposing some kind of REGULATION of guns in homes where there might be a mentally unstable person? How would you ever regulate THAT. The bureaucratic apparatus to support any of this would violate civil liberties all over the place.

Just don't let any Tom, Dick or Harry take home whatever guns they want in the first place. They're dangerous.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Dec 17, 2012 8:57pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Bingo.

It was a rhetorical question. My point was the conclusions of the study and how they woud break down subject to the constraints I outlined. I submit that the vast majority of gun ADs and NDs (accidental or negligent discharges) are the result of improper or nonexistent training by the owner, or access due to an improperly stored or secured firearm.

Even if you could implement all of the above and keep the Libertarians, NRA, no-guns-at-all Dems and free-guns-for-all Repubs happy you have done nothing to keep the guns out of the hands of those who will use them for violence except perhaps made it marginally more difficult to get one. If they can't get them legally, they will get them illegally.

Eliminating guns would work if you could come up with an air tight way to enforce it. But that option is political suicide. So we keep coming back to restricting access and every proposal I have read offered here or in the media ONLY restricts access to those who seek to obtain them legally and does little to make it harder to obtain them illegally.

snow cited a study that showed a correlation between the number of violent gun crimes in areas with "strict" gun laws. Of course there would be an overall drop. But if you peel back the onion layer you will find that while the number of overall gun crimes may have dropped, the vast majority of gun crimes committed were with illegally obtained weapons. So you've taken guns out of the hands of responsible owners, lowered the overall number of guns out of the population, but concentrated the illegally used or possessed guns.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Dec 18, 2012 7:13am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

"If they can't get them legally, they will get them illegally."

You keep coming back to this. This might be true of a small minority of people, but it's hard to imagine any of the three most recent shooters -- in Aurora, Oregon and Newtown -- as the kinds of figures ready to navigate the frightening underworld of illegal arms trafficking. These were very young, anti-social, frightened kids. Where exactly does one go to purchase a gun on the black market?

In all these cases, the guns were purchased legally and easily. In one case, by the shooter himself. In another, he stole the weapon from a friend. And in Newtown, he got it from his mother, who purchased it legally in a state with some of the toughest laws in the country.

Do you really think it would have made no difference if those weapons had been illegal in the first place?

I think it's worth mentioning that Lanza's mom purchased the AR-15 after the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire. I guess we can only speculate about what might have happened if the ban had been renewed, or (gasp!) strengthened.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 18, 2012 11:31am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Hey S&R--this is an EXCELLENT point that is overlooked completely...the folks that go on this sprees are NOT typical criminals. It just ISN'T true.

The real criminals that are so RARELY encountered in the imagined scenario that it simply isn't realistic to plan your defense against them (the classic homeowner blasts evil intruders scenario, etc., etc.; if they were, we'd hear about them ALL the time).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Dec 18, 2012 11:45am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

How many encounters do you need to make your sample set valid?

My scenario wasn't imagined. I'm 1 for 1. Fortunately, no one was permanently hurt, but the young man walked with a limp for quite awhile.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 18, 2012 11:58am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

I don't think there are ANY exceptions to the "spree" folks are not criminals, right?

As to defense, sure, lots of exceptions--ie, homeowner stops criminal--but those don't magically evaporate with VERY strict gun control...people like you would still have them, but ave folks would not, and ave folks are NOT the ones that make up your exceptions.

Assume that makes sense: people who KNOW how to use guns in the rare exceptions will STILL have them, even with v strict regulation, BUT the imagined "ave joe blow" that is supposedly DENIED access to guns by a bunch of laws, just DOESN'T exist...In essence, the myth of it being a bunch of folks out there that have had their defense mechanism withdrawn is what I am talking about...not the few that really know what they are doing.

Really. It's a straw man. It's as corny as the "we need them to overthrow an oppressive gubermint" which is the so silly I can't imagine it being mentioned these days.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: Dec 18, 2012 12:06pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

I'm not getting in to this, but it made me think of my old friends D & E. They would always tell us how badly we need guns in our home to protect from home invasion, yet they both smoked cigarettes and sometimes didn't buckle-up while driving. Always thought that was hilarious. D takes a drag off his Marlboro Red, exhales and continues about the dangers of strangers. HA!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 18, 2012 12:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

That is good; yeah, I said I wasn't getting into it TOO, but fell prey once again...maybe I need to go to a training course or some such, eh?

Clearly there needs to be some kind of "posting regulation" installed hereabouts by the feds, right? To keep idiots like me from chiming in on something nonDEAD that I already posted on at length (I hate to say it was the last time such a thing happened here in the US...sad).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: DeadRed1971 Date: Dec 18, 2012 11:41am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Here in Maryland we had John Pontolillo, a Johns Hopkins student kill an intruder with a Samurai sword.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: unclejohn52 Date: Dec 18, 2012 7:37am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

"So you've taken guns out of the hands of responsible owners, lowered the overall number of guns out of the population, but concentrated the illegally used or possessed guns."

I fail to see the logic of this. No one has taken away a single legally owned gun. Legal and responsible gun owners will take the necessary steps to own weapons - how does this take anything away? Legal drivers get licenses, legal cars are registered, legal sportsman get hunting or fishing licenses. And, by eliminating permissive gun shows and the patch-work of gun laws we have now, fewer illegal guns in future are in circulation - the concentration argument is DOA.

So now that we've all staked positions, had a good healthy dialogue... it's up to us all ("we the people") to move forward with ideas. What can we suggest to our leaders as possible ideas for improving this situation?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 18, 2012 12:35pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Mando - just inserting this here so you'll hopefully see it - I can't take the time to read all this this afternoon but appreciate your reply on the other thread as well, will come back.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Dec 18, 2012 2:22pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Got it ring, was hoping you saw that before it went off the cliff.

If you want to take it off line feel free....anytime

mandojamr at yaw whoo daught calm

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Dec 17, 2012 7:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Adam Lanza's mom had recurring training.

But how do you enforce "follow-on, recurring training"? Or storing guns properly? And that's a lot of fudge phrases: "known" mental illness, etc. So it wouldn't count as a problem if the mental illness wasn't known?

I think the point isn't that guns could in theory (and are in fact) kept safely by a lot of people who take all the rules and recommendations very seriously. But here's what I don't get. Pro-gun folks are quick to recognize that criminals don't follow laws. And on the whole, pro-gun folks don't care for a lot of govt regulation.

So, why do pro-gun folks seem unconcerned about the gun owners who also won't follow the rules perfectly (because they may not be criminals, but they're human)? And given that no one wants an Enforcement Guy to fine gun owners who don't have follow-on, recurring training, or to come over randomly to check that guns are in a locked safe with a trigger guard in homes with small children or people with known mental illnesses .... why isn't stricter access to guns a more workable alternative?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Dec 17, 2012 9:16pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Blazing away at a range on the weekend is not recurring training. Perhaps more will come out of this once the investigation progresses. I'd be surprised to find out she took part in any IDPA level of training.

Some pro-gun people may seem unconcerned about those who don't follow the rules - the truth is most of us despise those morons. It's a matter of discipline and a zero defect mind set.

Stricter access for who? How exactly will stricter access laws translate to the criminal element of society who will simply obtain the weapons illegally?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Dec 17, 2012 9:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

If stricter access wouldn't prevent it, how exactly would hoping for a change in human nature so that morons can never end up with guns anymore work out better?

The problem IS the morons. The criminal morons and the legal morons. Whether or not she was one, she undoubtedly thought she wasn't. And it doesn't matter when people are dead whether the gun came through a moron who didn't follow rules or a criminal who didn't follow rules, does it? People are still dead.

And, really, look at the numbers: Are there more criminals in the world with a desire and a tendency to target innocent folks, or are there more people in the world who are morons, or just lax with rules, imperfect, might have a lapse in judgment or have guns in the house around someone else who does, or who don't have "discipline and a zero defect mind set"? Personally I think that's quite a larger category than dangerous criminals who are out to get us and our loved ones with their guns and home invasions.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Dec 17, 2012 9:41pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

You've asked a great question. My guess is there are probably more idiots out there than criminals. The big difference between the accidental moron and the criminal is that you have to act to respond to asocial violence or you will be killed or injured. You can't just walk away from the criminal who has determined that you are going to be a target.

It doesn't take long at all to determine that your brother in law or neighbor is unskilled, untrained or careless with a firearm. You simply choose to not be anywhere near that person.

We were at a Christmas party several years ago at the home of a friend with an outdoor range. My wife and I were shooting with a good friend who is a SEAL. One of the other guests came up and without asking, opened up and started shooting downrange. His barrel discipline was horrendous. I had yanked my wife back off the line the first time his barrel crossed the 10:00 position. The second he finished his magazine and the slide on his gun was locked back he was on his face with the SEAL's knee in the back of his neck and his other foot on his shooting hand. The SEAL disassembled the weapon in about three seconds, threw the firing spring into the woods, yanked the guy to his feet and physically removed him from the range.

There are some things you just don't accept. I can and do choose to not be around those whose proficiency and responsibility is in question. I don't have much of a choice other than response in kind to a criminal who has targeted me or my family.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Dec 18, 2012 7:24am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Ah, nothing like squeezing off a few rounds to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. I love America.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicharIie Date: Dec 18, 2012 8:36am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

my weapons training began and ended in 1966. I would not even consider owning a firearm without now taking a safety course and lots of time at the firing range. A 22Mag long barrel handgun sounds good

Btw, tho I use the term "gun" I do own a rather useless one, but it still aims true - to about 3 feet ;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Dec 18, 2012 9:23am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

I'm not as anti-gun as most of you probably think I am. I believe there are circumstances under which I even might want a gun. If I lived in the wilderness or very far away from law enforcement, I'd probably want some kind of basic firearm to use against bears and such. I'm also not opposed to hunting, and believe that hunters should be able to own a reasonable collection. I just think that there are reasonable limits that we should place on the kinds of guns and ammo that should be permitted.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Dec 17, 2012 6:56pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

The Slate piece also points to a peer-reviewed journal, by the way. The kind of blanket dismissal that you've made here, apparently without even glancing at either of the sources that I cited, really doesn't help your argument much.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Hashjihad Date: Dec 17, 2012 7:19pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Typical, I ask for facts and you seem to get angry. The funniest part about this is I agree with you and I read both articles. Skepticism is part of being a scientist, and of peer reviewed research. Bottom line I don't believe jack shit in pop science media. Fox news can as readily twist a science based study to suit their own brand of bullshit. I am all for stricter gun laws, fear of the unknown killer barging into your house killing your family reminds me of how the church uses fear of hell to indoctrinate people into their religion. Fear begets fear, which is the huge problem with the media. Which I believe has more to do with gun violence than guns laws. The average American could probably name more mass murderers than presidents.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Dec 17, 2012 7:38pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Typical? Typical of what? I'm simply responding to your points, again with simple, easy-to-verify, facts. If that makes me "angry" then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

If you read both articles, then why did you ask me to "Post the Peer reviewed research" when I'd already done so?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Hashjihad Date: Dec 17, 2012 8:05pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Those are not peer reviewed. You have just proved that you haven't even glanced at the research. Normally you must subscribe or pay money to read actual studies, but perhaps you knew of a place I could ready it for free, or you are some sort of professor with access to those studies. Again those three paragraph articles reference studies, just like the wall street journal does, but would ever believe the crap coming from them? No. This study could be total baloney, but the only way to really tell would be to read how they went about the study. Not just believe what some writer at Slate has to say about it. Perhaps you weren't angry and perhaps I wanted to confirm my original supposition. And again I think mass media has much more to with violence overall, than simply gun laws. Which is the premise for Bowling for Columbine. Compare Canadian and American media. Or Al-Jazeera and American media. Sensationalist journalism which even some well known science based journals are not immune to.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Dec 17, 2012 8:32pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

The journals discussed in those articles are indeed peer-reviewed. I'm not trying to argue that Slate and Science Daily are medical journals.

And I more than glanced at the studies. I actually read them. Access is free here.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_1

Someone else also provided a link above. You've heard of Google?

The study mentioned in Slate is also just a mouse-click away from the article. In case that's too challenging for you to find on your own, here's the link:

http://jeffsachs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Australia-Gun-Law-Reforms.pdf

Either way, in the future you might try adding something substantive to the discussion instead of these blind attacks.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Hashjihad Date: Dec 17, 2012 8:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

I wrote a lot actually. Look again.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Hashjihad Date: Dec 17, 2012 8:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

But anyways I don't think changing gun laws will do very much. Some basic way in how we sensationalize news and mass murders like what currently is happening in the media is why these things keep happening. Did you see the slashing in China that killed 20? Did you read my idea about the RFID chip? We literally must go that far if a direct law involving guns is to do very much. It only takes one person and one gun. Perhaps makes bullets outrageously expensive?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Dec 18, 2012 7:05am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Yes, and in China, nobody died. The type of weapons available to these psychos is hugely important. Lanza would have killed far fewer people if he did not have access to the AR-15 and the big clips in the first place. Banning the sale and possession of those things alone might have cut the death toll in half, if not more.

An RFID chip seems like a pretty extreme idea that would also do nothing to stop the legal owners of these weapons from carrying out a massacre. Bottom line is, countries with very strict gun laws almost never have mass shootings of this kind.